A court ruling on a landmark case of religious freedom has cleared up the general principle of the rights of faith-based charities to form religious codes of conduct for their staff, but clarified little about how that should work in practice or whether it sets a clear precedent for future conflicts.

The ruling this week from the Ontario Divisional Court in Toronto said that Christian Horizons, an evangelical group that operates homes for the severely disabled in Ontario, did not have the right to fire Connie Heintz for being gay. But the court did say that religious charities could set a code of conduct for its employees — which was seen as a contradiction to some religious organizations.

“We have this bold interpretation in terms of respecting the rights of coreligionists to form groups, but when it came down to what standard was needed to have membership, they evaluated from a secular criteria,” said Peter Jervis, a Toronto lawyer who represented the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada at the December hearing.

“It still leaves questions to the extent to which religious communities can maintain identity and fully participate in the broader public society.”

Said John Pellowe, head of the Canadian Council of Christian Charities, which represents 3,000 charitable groups: “We have a team of lawyers trying to figure it out. We don’t know what it means [in practice] for our groups.”

Ms. Heintz, like all the 2,500 employees of Christian Horizons, signed a lifestyles and morals code, which banned sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriages. In 2000 she entered a gay relationship and was dismissed.

She then brought the case to an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

The tribunal ruled in 2008 that a religious group could only form a religious code of conduct when providing services to coreligionists. Christian Horizons, they noted, served people of all faiths or no faith — so there was no reason to have a code nor to dismiss Ms. Heintz. (Christian Horizons receives funding from the province, but that was never an issue in the case.)

Christian Horizons appealed the decision, which was heard by the divisional court in December.

The court said the tribunal erred in defining when a religious group can create a mandatory conduct code, something applauded by Christian groups.

Adrian Miedema, a lawyer who represented Christian Horizons at the appeal, said that ruling was significant because it will form the basis for how tribunals and courts in the future will deal with faith codes when they come into conflict with secular interests.

The divisional court said: “[I]t is clear that Christian Horizons … would not be doing this work of assisting people … but for the religious calling of those involved.”

However, when it came to Ms. Heintz, the court was more reticent to apply its general principle to her specific case and ruled she should not have been dismissed.

“[F]rom an objective perspective,” the court said, “the support workers are not actively involved in converting the residents to, or instilling in them, a belief in Evangelical Christianity.”

Cynthia Petersen, a Toronto lawyer who represented the gay rights group EGALE as an intervenor supporting the human rights tribunal decision, considered the court’s findings a victory.

“We live in a pluralistic society where religious freedom has to be respected, which includes that some positions have to be based on religious belief.”

But those positions, she said, logically would be people in the top ranks, who set the tone for the group.

“But in the case of Ms. Heintz, the court said her duties — bathing and feeding people — would have somehow had to have been operationally impaired by her sexual orientation.

“The court has now set a high bar for religious groups to prove a person’s orientation or beliefs would get in the way of their duties.”

National Postclewis@nationalpost.com

Cases in which religious and secular concerns have come into conflict:

* The Canadian Association of University Teachers issued a report in January that said B.C.-based Trinity Western University fell below the standard of proper academic freedom because it required its faculty sign a statement of Christian faith before being hired. The school called the findings nonsense.

* In 2008, the licensing body for Ontario’s doctors attempted but failed to strip away the right of physicians to refuse abortion referral and other procedures that go against their conscience.

* In Massachusetts, Catholic charities were forced to withdraw from adoption services because they would not adopt to gay couples — even though they would refer same-sex couples to other agencies.

* Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic school in North Carolina, may be forced by the federal government to include contraceptives in their drug plan. The school said it would close before giving in.

* In 2008, the Colorado Catholic Conference fought off a bill that would have taken away the right of faith-based groups that receive public money to hire or fire based on religion. The Colorado legislature backed off after the Church said it close all its charitable work.